Is global warming a real reason for concern? Sixth District Democratic congressional candidate Andy Schmookler doesn’t pretend to be an expert in climate science. He is smart enough to look at what those who are have to say.
“There are people who have been told that the way science works is that we have essentially a conspiracy of scientists from all over the world who are drumming up this hoax in order to frighten people so that they can get more research grants. That isn’t the world as it operates,” Schmookler said.
Read more. I also am smart enough to go to people who know more answers than I do.
The problem with “trusting the climate experts” is that there is a large and growing body of evidence that suggests climate change will be much milder than that predicted by the IPCC. Science is supposed to allow for multiple dissenting hypotheses to be published/presented, which are then studied intensely to determine which ones best fit the scientific evidence. Those that do not fit well are then discarded.
But AGW proponents have systematically subverted the scientific process by suppressing dissent. They try to deny funding to good, but dissenting scientists; they try to force editors of journals that publish dissenting content to be fired; they publicly brand anyone who disagrees as being in the pockets of oil companies or as deniers; and they present a false narrative that there is a scientific consensus regarding AGW and the need to do something about it. Despite all this, in the long term, I have confidence that the scientific process will prevail and all sides of the AGW issue will eventually be thoroughly studied.
In the short-term, left-leaning governments want to use AGW as a rationale to introduce controls that force reduced emissions of carbon dioxide and force consumers to use green technologies. Just as Obamacare will give the government unprecedented control over medical care, these expensive controls would provide the government with unprecedented control over the energy sector and the cost and availability of goods and products that affect our every-day lives. So in reality, the fight over AGW is a proxy for the battle over the power assumed by the government to control the economy and, by extension, our standard of living.
Or we could stuff our political opinions back where they belong and we could look at the science and take some precautions. Sadly the POB in Virginia have decided to politicize science. They should fear the folly associated with Galileo nearly 500 years ago and how stupid those who prosecuted him look from today’s standards.
To think that over a billion people can live on the earth and not impact its climate in some negative way is living a pipe dream.
The trouble with many of the climate change deniers say is they have their own minds made up and are never interested in what someone else might have to say about the subject.
The same thing could be said about climate change alarmists.
@Kelly, What makes a person an alarmist?
Pure logic tells us that our habits impact our environment. Is that being an alarmist?
Bull crap.
I am already tired of arguing today. If you don’t want my opinions, I am happy to move elsewhere.
I think your logic is faulty in this case. Random processes tend to produce white noise. There is no reason to presume a priori that human activities produce a positive or negative net effect on climate. If you cut down a forest to build a city, there are opposing effects. The underlying surface is usually much brighter than the dark forest it replaces, so the increased reflectivity is a cooling effect. But the city itself produces greater emissions and an urban heat island effect which tend to produce warming. In terms of climate, there are a multitude of competing effects with opposite signs (warming vs cooling) so that it is not at all obvious which will win out, let alone dominate.
Any of the model climate projections which try to account for these competing effects far exceed observed temperature and its trend over the past 10 to 15 years. So demands for urgent action by the government are putting the cart before the horse and thus should be identified as alarmist, in my view.
what scientists are you referencing Kelly? It is accepted science, around the world, that dramatic global warming IS occuring. Geez, even the skeptical scientist funded by the Koch brothers agrees.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2011/1021/Climate-study-funded-in-part-by-conservative-group-confirms-global-warming
Climate study, funded in part by conservative group, confirms global warming
I am aware of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project and applaud the way it has been done. They have used all available data and have openly shared their data and methods. Having said that, there is nothing really surprising about their findings. There was no doubt that surface temperatures have risen since the 1950s.
The real issue is attribution: what part of the warming is due to natural fluctuations and what part is due to AGW? The BEST project does nothing to answer that question, nor does it predict future trends. That’s what the models are supposed to do, but their simulations have failed to capture the flat/slightly decreasing temperature trend over the last 10-15 years. So my statements in #5 are not contradicted at all by the Berkeley dataset.
I would prefer to keep an open mind on this topic. There is far too much political interference to suit me.
Are you willing to bet the future, Kelly, or would you rather gather more evidence? I would prefer the latter.
Kelly,
You weren’t arguing the who, you are arguing the very idea of global climate warming.
you said, I imagine this was quoted from somewhere:
I think your logic is faulty in this case. Random processes tend to produce white noise. There is no reason to presume a priori that human activities produce a positive or negative net effect on climate. If you cut down a forest to build a city, there are opposing effects. The underlying surface is usually much brighter than the dark forest it replaces, so the increased reflectivity is a cooling effect. But the city itself produces greater emissions and an urban heat island effect which tend to produce warming. In terms of climate, there are a multitude of competing effects with opposite signs (warming vs cooling) so that it is not at all obvious which will win out, let alone dominate.
What this diatribe highlighted was “warming vs cooling”. No where did I read that you acknowledged the reality of global warming.
@kelly_3406
“I am already tired of arguing today. If you don’t want my opinions, I am happy to move elsewhere.”
You know the old thing about the door and you ass–right? Well don’t let it happen. Just because people don’t agree with you, you want to take your bat and ball and go home. So go.
P.S. Global warming and climate change are not the same.
@Elena
I do NOT acknowledge anthropogenic global warming as the primary reason for the increase in temperatures between the 1950s and 1990s. The fact that surface temperature is warmer than in the 1950s is not in dispute. But the gradual rise in surface temperature during that period stopped abruptly in 1998 and has not resumed, which provides observational evidence that climate oscillations were the culprit for the temperature rise, not AGW.
As you know, warming (anthropogenic global warming) in the atmosphere is postulated to occur due to human activities that emit carbon dioxide. In addition, there are well-known temporary periods of warming and cooling associated with natural climate fluctuations. Ice ages for example are periods associated with natural cooling. The Medieval Warm Period was a time in which there was natural warming. So natural climate fluctuations do provide plausible explanations for the warming that occurred in latter part of the 20th century.
To get back to your question, my discussion in #5 was about the influence of humans on climate, not about whether surface temperature has increased. My argument was that humans probably have not had much effect on climate. If this is the case, then expensive measures to reduce carbon emissions would be a waste of money, because they would not have much (if any) impact on the evolution of surface temperature.
@moon-howler
I would rather gather much more evidence before granting the federal government with sweeping powers to force reductions in CO2 emissions. As I mentioned above, such measures are unlikely to have any effect on the climate.
You didn’t mean for that to be funny, did you?
They aren’t the same. Climate change can get colder, pokie.
How have you been? How are the little dudes? How is Mrs. Pokie doing?